IDOLS = Gods we can Manipulate (Do ut des.)

Idols are gods we think we can manipulate to give us our own way, individually, corporately or nationally, through service, sacrifices and offerings. The true God cannot be so manipulated, but we can convert even the true God into an idol in our own minds by supposing that he can be.

Christian teachers often state the definition that “an idol is anything we put in the place of God.” But there is an even more fundamental definition of an idol: an “idol” is anything “we (or I) believe to be a divine being or a force beyond ourselves which we can manipulate to cause it to bless us, or to give us permission or power to have our own way.” Under this definition, idols do not have to be supernatural. They may be other people we believe have some of these powers, including simply the power to give us permission to do what we want without fear or the power to coerce others to give us what we want. They may also be human institutions on which we rely. They may be all of nature or the universe itself, as in some branches of Buddhism, for example, though both major versions of classical Buddhism strive to individually surrender to and be extinguished by it instead. Or they may be physical objects, animals, powerful people or natural processes we believe to have spiritual powers–the largest single group of human religions is the animistic faiths, and ancient Near Eastern religions developed from animistic roots. On the other hand, under this definition we may convert even the true God into an idol in our own minds, if we believe we are able to manipulate him to gain his blessing on the things we want or his permission to do what we want, irrespective of his will–as I will show below.

Our God, the one true God, already knows the end to which our lives and the creation are headed, because he planned it and is already there at every point in its development and at its end. That end is indescribably good, and includes all of his children. So his way for us in the present time, though it will often be both counterintuitive and painful, leads to an infinitely good end–better than anything we could plan.  Ultimately, for our own good, we serve him. He does not serve us. Idolatry reverses this, making God (or the gods) our servant.

Thus, human religion has historically believed that we serve god(s) or animistic spirit(s) who/that are merely more powerful than we are, but neither omnipresent nor all-knowing nor all-good (nor, necessarily, eternal). The god(s) do not have a good plan for us; like people, they serve themselves, and use us. Often, these deities are conceived of as largely indifferent or even hostile to us, and we humans are thought of as mere servants, tending to the needs of these deities. In most polytheistic systems, deities are conceived of as being at war with each other, and using the kings, nations, cities and tribes with which each of them associated–and which, in turn, “served” them with acts of ritual worship and by listening to their appointed priesthoods–as pawns in their warfare with each other. Indeed, it is precisely because the god(s) are believed to serve themselves, and to use our service for limited purposes pertaining to their own support and their own conflicts–i.e., that the god(s) need us–that we humans tend to think we are able to manipulate them to provide blessings to us (which we then return in service or sacrifice). Moreover, this service is commonly thought to be primarily collective and political on the human end–the god(s) need large social groupings and temples to serve them properly, and, therefore, the ancient god(s) were associated with social/political leadership elite of each city, tribe or clan, and it was not uncommon for rulers to claim to be either gods in themselves or the offspring of a god. A military victory was very definitely viewed as a victory of the victor’s god(s) over those of the vanquished. Moreover, poor harvests, plagues and natural disasters were commonly viewed as arbitrary and capricious divine punishment for disobedience or poor ritual service (the term “act of God” used in modern insurance contracts derives from this thinking).

So, in common human religious thinking from very early times, at the very least people individually and collectively have served capricious, indifferent or hostile god(s) out of duty and as a bribe to make them less likely to destroy the people collectively through famine, plague, natural disaster or military defeat. And, at the personal level, individuals have served their indifferent or hostile god(s) as a showing of loyalty to their clan, tribe or city and its semi-divine leaders, and to bribe those god(s), including their human leaders, to make them less likely to use their power to destroy or punish them. And often the people of a god have expected much more than this–continued good harvests, victory in battle, and continuing conquests of the people and lands of other, lesser gods. For this reason, it has traditionally been believed vitally important to the good of the whole community that each member give proper service and obedience to the group’s god(s)–an individual misstep might anger a capricious god, resulting in famine, plague, military defeat, or even the destruction of the whole community. Therefore, dissent, or variant ways of life, could not be tolerated (compare the ideological basis for “fundamentalist” or “hard-line” Hindu, Islamic and Christian attacks against dissenters today!)

The Mesopotamian culture out of which Abraham arose, and the Canaanite culture in the presence of which the Patriarchs were raised, largely took the very negative but manipulative view of the relationship between individuals, their human collectivities, and the plural gods described in the last two paragraphs. See, for instance, the very simplified discussions of the development of the various ancient Mesopotamian and, more generally, Near Eastern religions in Encyclopedia.com, Wikipedia and Nabataea.net. The Egyptian and Canaanite cultures among whom the early Hebrews lived also had similar views of their gods, nations and rulers.

The ancient idols that could capriciously send suffering were also, naturally, the same powers with which their worshippers vainly pleaded for relief from that suffering and for success in their endeavors:

[The LORD] will say: “Now where are their gods,  
the rock they took refuge in, 
the gods who ate the fat of their sacrifices
and drank the wine of their drink offerings? 
Let them rise up to help you! 
Let them give you shelter!

Deuteronomy 32:37-38.

Half of the wood he burns in the fire;  
over it he prepares his meal,  
he roasts his meat and eats his fill. 
He also warms himself and says, 
“Ah! I am warm; I see the fire.” 
From the rest he makes a god, his idol; 
he bows down to it and worships. 
He prays to it and says,  “Save me! You are my god!”

Isaiah 44:16-17

Of what value is an idol carved by a craftsman?
    Or an image that teaches lies?
For the one who makes it trusts in his own creation;
    he makes idols that cannot speak.
Woe to him who says to wood, ‘Come to life!’
    Or to lifeless stone, ‘Wake up!’
Can it give guidance?
    It is covered with gold and silver;
    there is no breath in it.”

The Lord is in his holy temple;
    let all the earth be silent before him.

Habakkuk 2:18-20.

This view of the gods as indifferent or hostile, but potentially bribable by the cities or nations each deity chose to serve them, as well as by individuals, was also the ancient Greek view of the gods, before the era of Classical Greek philosophy and literature started to humanize–but not eliminate–the “gods.”

On the other hand, by the time the Roman Republic started to seriously expand, it had dethroned its semi-divine king–replacing him with the first modern political state (which was still associated with plural gods and priesthoods). It had also absorbed several other local cultures along with their gods, and had also absorbed in part the more humanized Greek philosophical view of deity. So, the Roman Republican and, later, Imperial state religion had a somewhat more positive and inclusive view of their gods than had existed in previous societies. Roman gods were not, conceptually, inherently indifferent or hostile. Instead, they were seen as directly involved in Roman success, though still potentially hostile if their people failed to provide proper devotion. The Roman elite and their gods also generally approved of subject peoples, and servile classes within Rome itself, continuing to provide due devotion their own deities–the Romans feared the hostility of foreign and lesser gods–so long as these other gods and their human servants recognized the supremacy of the elite Roman gods. This very inclusive ancient  Roman approach to the worship of deities led to a more beneficent view of the gods than was found in any prior European or Near Eastern pagan system.  It also led to the explicit incorporation of a positive commercial element which had been only implicit and somewhat minimized in earlier systems, as described in the Wikipedia entry defining the Roman religious concept “Do ut des:”

The formula do ut des (“I give that you might give”) expresses the reciprocity of exchange between human being and deity, reflecting the importance of gift-giving as a mutual obligation in ancient society and the contractual nature of Roman religion. The gifts offered by the human being take the form of sacrifice, with the expectation that the god will return something of value, prompting gratitude and further sacrifices in a perpetuating cycle. The do ut des principle is particularly active in magic and private ritual. Do ut des was also a judicial concept of contract law.

In Pauline theology, do ut des was viewed as a reductive form of piety, merely a “business transaction”, in contrast to God’s unilateral grace (χάρις, charis). Max Weber, in The Sociology of Religion, saw it as “a purely formalistic ethic.” In The Elementary Forms of Religious Life, however, Émile Durkheim regarded the concept as not merely utilitarian, but an expression of “the mechanism of the sacrificial system itself” as “an exchange of mutually invigorating good deeds between the divinity and his faithful.”

Wikipedia:, Glossary of Ancient Roman Religion.

This contractual element became the cornerstone of Roman society and the social and political order:

The Romans thought of themselves as highly religious, and attributed their success as a world power to their collective piety (pietas) in maintaining good relations with the gods. The Romans are known for the great number of deities they honored, a capacity that earned the mockery of early Christian polemicists…

Roman religion was practical and contractual, based on the principle of do ut des, “I give that you might give”. Religion depended on knowledge and the correct practice of prayer, ritual, and sacrifice, not on faith or dogma, although Latin literature preserves learned speculation on the nature of the divine and its relation to human affairs. Even the most skeptical among Rome’s intellectual elite such as Cicero, who was an augur, saw religion as a source of social order. As the Roman Empire expanded, migrants to the capital brought their local cults, many of which became popular among Italians. Christianity was in the end the most successful of these, and in 380 became the official state religion.

For ordinary Romans, religion was a part of daily life. Each home had a household shrine at which prayers and libations to the family’s domestic deities were offered. Neighborhood shrines and sacred places such as springs and groves dotted the city. The Roman calendar was structured around religious observances.

Wikipedia, Religion in Ancient Rome

However, this commercial element in human religion, serving our gods because we believe we can manipulate them into giving us what we want, did not start with the Romans. It was at least implicit in all prior idolatrous systems, which bribed their gods in hope they would not do destructive things that would ruin human plans or end human communities. The Romans merely gave it its ultimate development, just in time for Christ to provide the true contrast to it.

The Apostle Paul, both a Jew and a Roman citizen by birth, clearly saw this commercial, contractual element in the Roman, Hellenistic Greek, and late-stage Middle Eastern paganism around him, but he did not see it as a positive thing. To those in the Body of Christ, being drawn back into it was a threat:

Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say. Is not the cup of thanksgiving for which we give thanks a participation in the blood of Christ? And is not the bread that we break a participation in the body of Christ? Because there is one loaf, we, who are many, are one body, for we all share the one loaf.

Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?

1 Corinthians 10:14-22.

Formerly, when you did not know God, you were slaves to those who by nature are not gods.  But now that you know God—or rather are known by God—how is it that you are turning back to those weak and miserable forces? Do you wish to be enslaved by them all over again? You are observing special days and months and seasons and years! I fear for you, that somehow I have wasted my efforts on you.

Galatians 4:8-11.

And, with regard to unbelieving pagans and their societies, Paul clearly saw that pagans were making a deal with their “gods”–they created gods that would let them do what they wanted–and, unbeknownst to them, in “return” the TRUE God gradually gave them exactly what they wanted by “giving them over” to increasingly destructive desires and life patterns:

The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of people, who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

For although they knew God, they neither glorified him as God nor gave thanks to him, but their thinking became futile and their foolish hearts were darkened. Although they claimed to be wise, they became fools and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like a mortal human being and birds and animals and reptiles.

Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another.  They exchanged the truth about God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator—who is forever praised. Amen…

Furthermore, just as they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, so God gave them over to a depraved mind, so that they do what ought not to be done. They have become filled with every kind of wickedness, evil, greed and depravity. They are full of envy, murder, strife, deceit and malice. They are gossips, slanderers, God-haters, insolent, arrogant and boastful; they invent ways of doing evil; they disobey their parents; they have no understanding, no fidelity, no love, no mercy.

Romans 1:18-25, 28-31 (emphasis added).

None of this was new, even in Paul’s day. The conceit of contractual manipulation of God started with the first two humans, and was seen repeatedly throughout scriptural history. Consider the following examples:

1. The first two humans, Adam and Eve, though initially together one “man,” were first deceived into a false view of God as hostile, then idolized the snake and themselves through rebellion, then finally idolized their own bodies and their independence and fully converted the true God into an angry, hostile idol in their own minds. See, Genesis 1:26-28, 2:23-25, 3:1-13; Colossians 1:22. See: Adam and Eve: Idolatry in the Fall.
2. Cain and Abel, a story in which Abel gave true worship to God and was accepted by him, but Cain instead idolized God by trying to win his favor by offering the fruit of his own works and was rejected, leading to the first murder, which was also an act of idolatry. Genesis 4:1-16; Hebrews 11:1-4; Matthew 23:35; 1 John 3:12; Jude 1:10-11.
3. Nimrod and the Tower of Babel: Domination, Conquest and the Urge to Idolatry. Genesis 10:8-12 and 11:1-9, compared and contrasted with Genesis 9:5-7, Isaiah 14:12-14, John 8:42-47, John 10:7-11 and Matthew 4:19.
4. Aaron’s golden calf, which he called Yahweh, and which shared its glory with other “gods.” Exodus 32:1-9; Deuteronomy 9:7-17; Acts 7:39-43.
5. Balak hiring Balaam to curse Israel in the name of the true God. Numbers 22-24; Deuteronomy 23:3-6; Micah 6:5.
6. The Legalistic misapplication of the Law given to Moses. James 4:11-12; Matthew 5:17-20; Matthew 12:1-13; Matthew 13:52; Matthew 22:35-40; Matthew 23; Mark 7:1-23; Luke 11:37-52; John 7:16. 23; John 19:7; Galatians 2:15-21; Galatians 5:1-6,13-18; 1 Timothy 1:8-11; Hebrews 10:1-3; James 2:8-10; 1 John 3:4-5.
7. Worshipping the true God and idols, simultaneously. 1 Kings 11; Hosea 8:1-5; 2 Kings 23:8-14; Acts 7:39-43 (Amos 5:25-26); Zephaniah 1:4-6.
8. Treating God as an advisor, thinking our wisdom is greater than his. James 1:5-8; 1 Samuel 15:20-26; 1 Samuel 13:5-15; 1 Kings 22:1-36; Proverbs 28:26; Ecclesiastes 10:1; Isaiah 47:10-11; Jeremiah 8:8-10; Ezekiel 28:2-7, 12-18; John 7:17.
9. Greed, which is idolatry. Ephesians 5:4-6; Colossians 2:5.
10. Carrying the Ark into battle like a magic charm, as if God’s “presence” guaranteed victory. 1 Samuel 4:1-11.
11. King Saul–Israel asking for a human king “like all the nations” around them 1 Samuel 8:5,7-9,19-22; 1 Samuel 10:17-25. Saul, as king, later directly disobeying two instructions–both pertaining to sacrifice and to God’s relationship to the nation and the monarchy–as a result of fear and pride.
12. Jeroboam’s golden calves, which by decree took the place of Yahweh for a purely political reason, and which also shared their glory with other gods. 1 Kings 12:26-33, 13:1-6, 14:2, 6-16; 2 Kings 23:15-16.
13. False trust in being delivered solely because the Temple of the Lord was in Jerusalem, thinking of the Temple in an idolatrous manner as a magical charm, protecting its people from the consequences of their rebellion, Jeremiah 7:3-12.
14. Judah’s False trust in empty sacrifices, offerings and festivals. Amos 4:4-8; Amos 5:20-24; 1 Samuel 13:5-15; Hosea 8:11-12.
15. Other passages about God “giving over” idolaters to their own way. Deuteronomy 4:15-29; Acts 7:39-43; Isaiah 44:9-11, 18-20.
16. The Jewish Temple cult of Jesus’ day and the question of who gets to make a profit from the worship of God. Matthew 21:12-13, 23-45.
17. The works of the flesh–the company idolatry keeps in the New Testament. Galatians 5:19-21; 1 Corinthians 10:6-11; Revelation 21:7-8; Revelation 22:15.
18. Is 1 John 5:21 a random interjection or the heart of John’s message?

Among Gentiles:

1. The Assyrian field commander’s taunts comparing God to the gods of other cities his master had conquered. 2 Kings 18:27-35, 19:1-35.
2. The religion of the Samaritans. 2 Kings 17:26-28; John 4:1-42; Acts 8:4-25.
3. The Moabite king who sacrificed his firstborn son to his gods to plead for relief from a siege. 2 Kings 3:26-27.
4. Babylon, “whose strength is their god,” worshipping the net it uses to snare other peoples. Habakkuk 1:10-11,14-17.
5. The future ruler predicted by Daniel who will worship himself and the god of fortresses. Daniel 11:36-40.
6. Lystra ready to receive Paul and Barnabas as gods after they healed a man. Acts 14:8-18.
7. The many gods and “unknown god” of Athens. Acts 17:22-33.
8. The uproar in Ephesus over the honor of a goddess–and the profits of the artisans who made her idol images. Acts 19:23-40.

CONCLUSION: Idols are gods humans create for themselves. Like the human rulers of the people that create them, idols are believed to be largely hostile or indifferent towards mere mortals, their subjects, and to associate with us at all only because they need or desire our service. But, just like human rulers, these false gods can be bribed into taking a positive interest in us through offerings and correct ritual service. They can be bribed into doing for us what we want, or giving their blessing to our human plans. There is, thus, a commercial element in human relations with false gods, which can be thought of as the Romans explicitly thought of it, as a fair exchange of value between each idol and its subjects.

The true God is not like this. He always has the ultimate good of his people in mind, accomplished through his grace, and cannot be bribed. We do not give him offerings, or ritual service, in exchange for his favor. But people can convert, and often have converted, the true God into an idol in their own thinking by seeking to bribe him, by thinking that, if they do enough for him, or give enough to him, the true God is bound to bless their human plans or give them what they want. Thus idolizing the true God is a danger into which Christians, Christian church organizations and “Christian” nations have all too often fallen.